Opinions
I completely understand that people have their own opinions and views on things, but when they challenge someone else's views, they should at least have some sort of warrant behind their claim. Examples of a warrant would be evidence, empirical examples, etc. The person that posted this:
"Anonymous said...
I'd tell you the same thing if we were in person: that article was full of bullshit. Full of uneducated rambling."
in response to my State of Illusion post, is obviously lacking warrants in their opinion, while what I posted was full of empirical examples.
Also, if you're going to come onto my blog and tell me things that I post are "bullshit" make sure you leave your name, so I know who the fuck is challenging me. Did you not leave your name because you really don't know what the hell you're talking about, or is it because you're just a mindless drone that believes everything that he/she hears from our oh-so-great leader and his cronies? At this point, I would have to say that the one that has the most convincing argument for being right about the topics discussed in State of Illusion is the author of it, not someone that says it's bullshit rambling. If whoever posted that and the other comment about the article would actually like to discuss the ideas presented, I'm more than happy to, but don't be a bitch and hide behind the internet's cloak.
"Anonymous said...
I'd tell you the same thing if we were in person: that article was full of bullshit. Full of uneducated rambling."
in response to my State of Illusion post, is obviously lacking warrants in their opinion, while what I posted was full of empirical examples.
Also, if you're going to come onto my blog and tell me things that I post are "bullshit" make sure you leave your name, so I know who the fuck is challenging me. Did you not leave your name because you really don't know what the hell you're talking about, or is it because you're just a mindless drone that believes everything that he/she hears from our oh-so-great leader and his cronies? At this point, I would have to say that the one that has the most convincing argument for being right about the topics discussed in State of Illusion is the author of it, not someone that says it's bullshit rambling. If whoever posted that and the other comment about the article would actually like to discuss the ideas presented, I'm more than happy to, but don't be a bitch and hide behind the internet's cloak.
posted by Clint at 6:32 PM
2 Comments:
wow, way to make yourself look like an asshole. i thought you were a nice guy...but i guess it was "self proclaimed" huh?
clint who said that the guy who wrote the article isnt a mindless drone too. there wouldnt be any news if he didnt disagree. has the public really ever liked a president when there is issues that are serious. i would like to know how you would deal with the current situation and keep in mind that you dont know all of what is really going on either. But i do agree with you that anonymous must back there view when challenging you. There was many dinners where i learned that lesson. Its not a fight just debate so keep it clean boys. chels
Post a Comment
<< Home